Advertisement

"ZEITGEIST, Part 1" Debunked? NOT!

topic posted Fri, April 11, 2008 - 10:44 AM by  Rocky
Share/Save/Bookmark
"ZEITGEIST, Part 1" Debunked? NOT!

"...When the subject matter is examined scientifically and in depth, there continues to be no credible evidence for the existence of the gospel character named Jesus Christ, and the preponderance of scientific evidence points to him being as mythical a character as the Greek god Hercules and the many other deities of the Roman Empire of the time.

While people who take such a position are widely subjected to ridicule and derision, based on all the evidence this conclusion is demonstrably the most reasonable and logical. Furthermore, in a truthful world where we should not be compelled to reside in BLIND BELIEF, this perspective should be allowed to exist without its holders being derogated and abused, as well as dunned with impossibly high standards of proof, while claims in the religious arena require little to no proof at all! "

tbknews.blogspot.com/2008/04...not.html

"The Companion Guide to ZEITGEIST Part 1" E-Book
www.stellarhousepublishing.com/ze...tml

Zeitgeist part 1 video toward the bottom - www.truthbeknown.com/videos.html

Pass it around

;
posted by:
Rocky
Advertisement
  • For further reading:

    Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled
    www.truthbeknown.com/sunsofgod.htm

    The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold
    www.truthbeknown.com/christ.htm

    free online videos www.truthbeknown.com/videos.html

    "Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ" - VIDEO
    www.livevideo.com/video/1FD...ts-of.aspx

    ;
    • ALWAYS thought the zeitgeist to be quite...great. i cannot wait to watch it again

      do any of these videos mention: the essene gospel of peace?
      i forgot, did the zeit make any mention?

      lol look at all the people that faithfully believe the bible is the real thing
      • Roger, part 1 is only 25 minutes - therefore they cannot be expected to cover everything on the topic of religion over the last 5,000 years.

        Just a reminder that this thread is ONLY about Zeitgeist Part 1, I'm not interested in discussing parts 2 or 3 here in this thread.

        From the other thread,

        "Absence of evidence *IS* evidence of absence"

        Hoopes "Actually not. Argument from ignorance is a fallacy."

        - When theists and atheists etc, have searched for evidence to support religious claims, such as the existence of Jesus for 2,000 years and have turned up nothing - it is not a fallacy based on ignorance to say, "absence of evidence *IS* evidence of absence."

        Your side of the argument simply refuses accept the "burden of proof" - you make claims and can never back them up with any evidence to support the claims. Claims can only be decided on evidence. If something is not real or doesn't exist then no evidence can be found that will support or refute it, i.e. the principle of "proving a negative."

        "Those who behave in this manner are rejecting the use of reason. They want to believe that X is true or that X exists and to believe it without evidence or even against evidence to the contrary. They want to have their beliefs remain intact and not subject to refutation or to reexamination for fear of needing to alter their beliefs. They rest their beliefs in X existing or in X being true not on evidence and reason but on FAITH and even on BLIND FAITH and when against reason and counterevidence on willful BLIND FAITH. Such behavior is within the realm of Religion and not at all acceptable amongst those who would pursue Philosophical discourse or who would ask that reason and evidence support claims."
        • "When theists and atheists etc, have searched for evidence to support religious claims, such as the existence of Jesus for 2,000 years and have turned up nothing - it is not a fallacy based on ignorance to say, 'absence of evidence *IS* evidence of absence.'"

          Yes, it is.

          Your position can be summarized by the following statement:

          "There is no credible evidence that Jesus was a real person, therefore he wasn't"

          This is logically equivalent to the following statements:

          "There is no credible evidence that people are abducted by aliens, therefore they aren't."

          "There is no credible evidence that crop circles are made by extraterrestrials, therefore they aren't."

          "There is no credible evidence that the ancient Maya predicted a transformation of consciousness in 2012, therefore they didn't."

          In each of these fallacious statements, the fallacy begins at "therefore". Replace the commas with periods and delete everything that follows, and they are no longer fallacies.
          • sorry, i missed
            just got home from work=a real job, for however that lasts...

            jesus is not being fun today, but what else was i to expect?
            faith, belief, trust...
            trust has missed, but by just a few, letters.

            what are you willing to pay...
            sorry, wrong site, tribe, thread....

            maybe god was real,
            but SPIRITUALLY truly lives
            and if your interpretation is right, maybe if wrong,
            at least you have...
            one

            little r's children hour will continue...
          • Hoopse, I am quite familiar with the assortment of fallacies. Your argument is not working for you here because you really are arguing from ignorance - not a derogatory remark towards you. Re-read my last post as many times as it takes to sink-in - I thought I addressed it clearly. If not, I'll try to help make it more clear.

            You should've read all of those links you brought forth trying to back-up your argument. You'll notice that NONE of them mention "absence of evidence" except one and it says:

            "The conclusion of open-mindedness also is meant to have the strong implication that we should not treat the absence of evidence as evidence of absence. In fact, the phrase "absence of evidence" is a misnomer. For absent evidence is real evidence. It is the evidence of a failure to detect expected effects of a hypothesis, and so it is evidence against the hypothesis."
            www.csicop.org/si/9801/adler.html

            This is why claiming "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" can be a fallacy in some circumstances - especially as it relates to religion or Jesus.

            ---------------

            Moving on...

            Excerpted from "Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ"

            "Did Jesus Fulfill Prophecy?"

            www.stellarhousepublishing.com/je...tml

            ;
            • From the website you cited:

              "The deliberate historicizing of 'prophecies' by ancient writers is well known among biblical scholars..."

              I don't doubt that this occurred, though I suspect that the story of the return of a messianic king and Jesus' identification as such was actually inspired by the untimely death of Josiah, a young and charismatic reformer promoted by a priesthood to preside over "Deuteronomic reform":

              en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah

              The first verses of the Gospel of Matthew (the beginning of the New Testament) trace Jesus' lineage to Josiah. This king (a descendant of David), who took great initiatives in the extirpation of polytheism and idolatry, apparently saw himself as a new Joshua, the mythological leader who had conquered Canaan for the Israelites. He died in his 30s, at the height of a stellar career, on the battlefield, in an incident that must have rocked ancient Israel even more than the assassination of JFK. It's not difficult to imagine that a mythology emerged surrounding his death, especially given the depradations of Israel that followed (including the Babylonian exile), and that a cult emerged claiming he would return to restore Israel to its former glory.

              The counts of 40 generations among these individuals, from Joshua to Josiah to Jesus, suggest a mythological motif, as does the similarity in their names. Joshua, Josiah, and Yeshua (the Hebrew name of Jesus) are all written with similar Hebrew characters and no vowels. In the time of the Roman occupation, it would not be surprising that a small cult of royalists, yearning for the return of a noble descendant of the House of David, would identify a "legitimate heir" to the throne from a modest, hidden lineage. It would also not be surprising that their claims of a "Jewish Anastasia" (or similar hidden heir) would be rejected by a priesthood that had, since the defeat of the monarchy and the Babylonian exile, emphasized the Temple over the Palace and the Law over the Lineage.

              References to Jesus as "King of the Jews" may be references to claims that he was a legitimate heir to the Davidic monarchy by a small group of royalists who claimed to have maintained genealogies and traced royal lineages for more than 500 years (Josiah died in the 7th century BCE). Their claims would have been actively suppressed, leading to secrecy, loss of records, and garbled interpretations. If you examine what it was that Josiah (ironically, at the behest of a beseiged priesthood) was trying to do--i.e. major religious reform focused on strict monotheism and centralized enforcement of a code of religious law--you'll see the origins of his "messianic message".

              None of this scenario suggests that Jesus did not exist, only that (as other have pointed out) a great deal of mythology derived from both historic events and a much larger mythology of the non-Jewish world (for purposes of prosetylization), was attached to the man to produce Christian doctrine.
              • So we've established that "absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence" is a fallacy as it relates to religion.

                H "None of this scenario suggests that Jesus did not exist, only that (as other have pointed out) a great deal of mythology derived from both historic events and a much larger mythology of the non-Jewish world (for purposes of prosetylization), was attached to the man to produce Christian doctrine."

                - Mythology attatched to a man who never existed, this *IS* mythology. There is plenty of evidence of people who "BELIEVED" Jesus existed years afterward but there's nothing to show he did or said anything or that he even existed at all - the belief in his existence is based on fantasy and euphoria.

                Shallow encyclopedia entries will not help your case.

                "Hide the prophecy, tell the narrative, and invent the history."

                "The Gospels are neither histories nor biographies, even within the ancient tolerances for those genres."

                ~ Dr. John D. Crossan, The Historical Jesus (372)
                New Testament scholar, theologian, former Catholic priest and Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies at DePaul University
                • "So we've established that 'absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence' is a fallacy as it relates to religion."

                  I don't see how that's been established at all. Why the exception for religion?

                  "the belief in his existence is based on fantasy and euphoria"

                  And belief in his non-existence is also just that: Belief. It is not a proven fact, nor can it be proven.

                  The assertion that there was someone named Jesus who lived at time he is said to have lived and who became the center for an elaborate mythology cannot be disproven by a lack of evidence. The absence of documentation is completely reasonable given the violent history of the region and the incomplete nature of written records from that place and time.

                  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

                  I suggest that a better logical approach is Occam's Razor, which does not require proof or belief, only the demonstation of parsimony and a minimization of assumptions about unknowns and missing evidence.

                  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

                  You cannot prove that Jesus didn't exist, but you can assert that an invention or embellishment may have been central to Christian mythology. You can also demonstrate that assertions about Jesus and actions attributed to him (such as raising people from the dead or being resurrected himself) are unlikely to be true.
            • I'll also point out, as a topic for discussion, that the post-hoc mythologization of the Maya calendar, claims of Maya "prophesy," and they hype about 2012 is a process that has many parallels with the way that ancient Hebrew texts were used to create the "prophetic" mythology of the New Testament. This includes selective interpretations of ancient texts as well as the addition of new, eclectic elements (lost continents, extraterrestrials, telepathy, Hindu and Hopi connections, etc.) that are similar to the way Christian doctrine included a combination of Jewish and pagan traditions.

              I'll prophesize myself that whatever actually happens in 2012 will be relatively insignificant compared to the post-event mythologizing that wil undoubtedly continue--perhaps for generations--after December 21, 2012 is long past.

              It will be interesting to see (though none of us will be around for this) whether the post-2012 mythology becomes as elaborate and as world-changing as the post-Crucifixion mythology that followed the death of Jesus.
  • We will probably never be able to prove whether a man known as Jesus Christ ever lived. As I see it, Zeitgeist is a good but oversimplified look at some alternative views on several topics. Regarding the religious portion, you can't really deny that it makes some good points. What many people -average people, scholars and conspiracy theorists alike- cannot seem to accept is that so much of "reality" is a matter of semantics, definitions and subjective beliefs. There is no definitive way, for example, to prove whether or not Krishna and Jesus are the "same" deity.
    What *is* true is that the Jesus story does fall into the general category of gods who die and are reborn/resurrected. Christianity is the product of a complicated synthesis of Judaism, Roman bureacuracy and earlier pagan traditions. So in that respect, Zeitgeist is correct, at least in the very broad strokes it paints on the subject.
    • "As I see it, Zeitgeist is a good but oversimplified look at some alternative views on several topics."

      I'm not even convinced that it's "good", whatever that means. People who are convinced by the mythology of Zeitgeist that its assertions are TRUE are being just as gullible as the people the film criticizes for holding unfounded beliefs. That's a bit ironic.
      • H "And belief in his non-existence is also just that: Belief"

        - No, this demonstrates your ignorance on the investigation.

        H "You cannot prove that Jesus didn't exist"

        - I don't have to, you (and anyone else throughout history) can't provide any evidence to support the claim i.e. "burden of proof" therefore, I am not required to disprove something that has not been demonstrated to exist. The principle of "burden of proof" rests in the hands of the person(s) making the claim(s).

        The difference between me and you Hoopse is that I actually know what the principles of "burden of proof" and "proving a negative" etc are.

        H "The assertion that there was someone named Jesus who lived at time he is said to have lived and who became the center for an elaborate mythology cannot be disproven by a lack of evidence. The absence of documentation is completely reasonable given the violent history of the region and the incomplete nature of written records from that place and time."

        - This only demonstrates your ignorance on the facts and evidence that does exist vs. the unsupported claims by the biased, euphoric Christians based on faith. If there were any evidence to support their claims, "FAITH" would not be the main requirement. Christians and others may continue claiming that there was a historical Jesus for another 2,000 years but repeating it over and over will never make it so.

        An atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of a god, i.e., in the existence of a supernatural being. Why doesn't the atheist believe in a god? Quite simply, because belief in a god is unreasonable. Can the atheist prove that a god does not exist? The atheist need not "prove" the nonexistence of a god, just as one who does not believe in magic elves, fairies, gremlins, Invisible Pink Unicorns, Flying Spaghetti Monsters and the Celestial Teapot does not have to prove their nonexistence. A person who asserts the existence of something assumes the burden of proof. The theist, or god-believer, asserts the existence of a god and must prove the claim. If the theist fails in this task, reasonable people will reject the belief as groundless. Atheists do not believe in a god because there is no reason they should.

        "I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

        ~ Historian Stephen Henry Roberts 1901-71
        • "- I don't have to, you (and anyone else throughout history) can't provide any evidence to support the claim i.e. 'burden of proof' therefore, I am not required to disprove something that has not been demonstrated to exist."

          Well, you *are* if you are insisting that Jesus did not exist. The burden of proof is on you to prove that your assertion is correct.

          I'm not saying that Jesus *did* exist, only that it seems more likely to me that there was an actual person at the center of the myth than that it was created whole cloth from nothing but imagination.

          "Christians and others may continue claiming that there was a historical Jesus for another 2,000 years but repeating it over and over will never make it so."

          Similarly, people with your perspective may continue claiming that there was NOT a historical Jesus for another 2,000 years but repeating it over and over will never make it so."

          What does any of this have to do with belief in God or atheism?
        • In attempt to bring some clarity to this debate, your argument seems to run like this:

          - Jesus was a fictional character like Tom Sawyer or Huckleberry Finn. He therefore never existed.

          My argument is more like this:

          - Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn are fictional characters, but they probably were based in part on real people who actually lived and who Mark Twain knew.

          - Mark Twain was writing at a time when the genre of fiction was widely recognized, so it was accepted that Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn--characters he created--were not real people.

          - The genre of fiction is an inappropriate model with which to interpret the New Testament, because there was no such thing as "fiction" at the time it was written.

          - Even though Jesus, like Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn, may be a largely literary construct, it is important to acknowledge that Jesus, like these characters, may have been based on a living person.

          - Just as understanding the lives of characters like those who inspired Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn is important for an interpretation of the work of Mark Twain, an understanding of the individual who inspired the story of Jesus is important for an interpretation of the New Testament.

          - It is as pointless to say "Tom Sawyer never existed" as it is to say "Jesus never existed". They both existed (and still exist) in a fashion that was neither wholly literal nor wholly imaginary.

          Does this help?
          • H "Well, you *are* if you are insisting that Jesus did not exist. The burden of proof is on you to prove that your assertion is correct. "

            - No H, you still don't understand what's going on here even though it has been explained many times. You're now using circular logic to make your argument which will never work - I don't have to prove Jesus never existed the burden of proof rests in the hands of those who claim a positive existence. You're simply not clear how the principle of "burden of proof" works. People didn't just out of the blue start claiming Jesus never existed until after Christians began claiming he did. Lets not get dishonest about it. There has never been any evidence throughout all of history demonstrating the Jesus of the bible ever existed. Even the earliest Christians could never produce any evidence to support their claims.

            H "I'm not saying that Jesus *did* exist, only that it seems more likely to me that there was an actual person at the center of the myth than that it was created whole cloth from nothing but imagination."

            - While this sounds like a reasonable position on the surface, it's actually based on ignorance of previous mythological parallels with older pagan gods. There exists no person in the core of that onion. Do some research.

            "A collage of 20 different people is no one"
            ~ Gerald Massey

            H "In attempt to bring some clarity to this debate..."

            - You could do that with some in-depth research instead of relying so heavily on ignorance.

            H "- Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn are fictional characters, but they probably were based in part on real people who actually lived and who Mark Twain knew. "

            - Your indicating word here is "probably" - that is your euphoria that leads you to assume falsely based on your sense of feeling that it simply must be so. This is not research, this is faith.

            H "The genre of fiction is an inappropriate model with which to interpret the New Testament, because there was no such thing as "fiction" at the time it was written.... does this help?"

            - Your heavy usage of the straw man fallacy did not help your case in fact, it weakened it.

            I suggest you study what "burden of proof" is. Your comments here demonstrate that you don't know what real investigation and in-depth research is either. Using straw man fallacies and evidence based in euphoria or faith i.e. "probably" and "may have been based on a living person" will never be taken seriously.

            Before you go any further arguing in ignorance, it may be wise to do some further reading of works that discuss the evidence and facts surrounding these issues.

            "The Companion Guide to ZEITGEIST Part 1" E-Book
            www.stellarhousepublishing.com/ze...tml

            Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled
            www.truthbeknown.com/sunsofgod.htm

            The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold
            www.truthbeknown.com/christ.htm

            Free online videos - www.truthbeknown.com/videos.html

            ;
            • "There has never been any evidence throughout all of history demonstrating the Jesus of the bible ever existed. Even the earliest Christians could never produce any evidence to support their claims."

              You've got to be kidding. The New Testament has always been presented as evidence that Jesus existed. Just because *you* don't accept it as "evidence" doesn't that that it's not. There is a long history of oral tradition as evidence:

              en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_tradition

              It is now being accepted by the U.S. government in claims on Native American cultural property.

              Just because it's not "good" evidence in your eyes doesn't mean that it's not "any" evidence. Just becsuse you don't find it credible as evidence doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
            • "There exists no person in the core of that onion. Do some research."

              Getting a little bossy here in our defensiveness, aren't we?

              "A collage of 20 different people is no one"

              No, but it's a collage of 20 different people, all of whom existed.

              "Your indicating word here is 'probably'"

              Just one word, but it makes all the difference. There is a vast gulf between hearing "You are probably pregnant" (or "You are probably the father") and hearing "You are pregnant" (or "You are the father"). You are not saying "Jesus probably did not exist". You are saying "Jesus did not exist". It is the absence of any room for doubt or questioning that makes your argument fallacious.

              "it may be wise to do some further reading of works that discuss the evidence and facts"

              It may be wise for you to reconsider what you are identifying as "evidence" and "facts". You seem to be constricting the rules of evidence in such a way that they will only support a forgone conclusion.

              Maybe we should start afresh. Who, exactly, is the "Jesus" that you firmly believe did not exist?
              • H "The New Testament has always been presented as evidence that Jesus existed."

                - No Hoopse, that's what folks say when they know nothing about the in-depth investigation. You're simply regurgitating Christian biased views here - not evidence based on peer review scrutiny. You don't even seem to know what that is.

                H "Just because *you* don't accept it as "evidence" doesn't that that it's not. There is a long history of oral tradition as evidence: "

                - No, it's just me it's top Christian authorities, apologists and evangelicals, as well as New Testament scholars who admit the New Testament nor the Old can be used as historical evidence for much at all.

                "Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of The Christ" contains quotes from the following Christian authorities, apologists and evangelicals, as well as New Testament scholars:

                * John Ankerberg
                * Craig L. Blomberg
                * F.F. Bruce
                * William Lane Craig
                * John Dominic Crossan
                * Bart Ehrman
                * Norman Geisler
                * Gary Habermas
                * Josh McDowell
                * John P. Meier
                * Bruce M. Metzger
                * J.P. Moreland
                * Ronald H. Nash
                * Lee Strobel
                * Merrill C. Tenney
                * Ben Witherington
                * Edwin Yamauchi
                * And more!

                WWJ organized an almost all Christian bibliography. These Christian authorities, apologists and evangelicals, as well as New Testament scholars admit that when it comes to the very best evidence for Jesus, they’ve got NOTHING.

                H "Euphoria? Assume? I don't know where you get either of these."

                - Because you clearly start out with the a priori assumption that Jesus existed and go from there without ever investigating to see if he did - if you did that, you'd see that no evidence exists.

                <<"A collage of 20 different people is no one">>

                H "No, but it's a collage of 20 different people, all of whom existed. "

                - LOL, you only prove my point here - you don't even know who the "20 different people" are and you're ready to believe they existed without even knowing who we're talking about.

                The rest of your posts relies on more circular logic that is irrelevant and useless. Stop trying to pretend to be an expert on something that you know very little about.

                "The gospels are not primarily works of history in the modern sense of the word."
                ~ Dr. John Meier, A Marginal Jew (I, 41)

                "One would naturally expect that the Lord Jesus Christ would be sufficiently important to receive ample notice in the literature of his time, and that extensive biographical material would be available. He was observed by multitudes of people, and his own followers numbered into the hundreds (1 Cor. 15:6), whose witness was still living in the middle of the first century. As a matter of fact, the amount of information concerning him is comparatively meager. Aside from the four Gospels, and a few scattered allusions in the epistles, contemporary history is almost silent concerning him."
                ~ Merrill C. Tenney, "New Testament Survey," p. 203.
                ~ WWJ 85-86

                * Dr. Tenney is a conservative evangelical Christian who was a professor of Theological Studies and the dean of the school of Theology at Wheaton College. Tenney was also one of the original translators of the NASB and NIV editions of the Bible.

                Are you getting the picture - even top Christian biblical scholars admit they've got NOTHING when it comes to evidence for Jesus - Just deal with it and move on.
                • You can throw as many names and quotes at me as you want, but that doesn't get to the heart of things.

                  Is the Bible literally true? Probably not.

                  Did Jesus exist exactly as described in the New Testament? Probably not.

                  Is it possible to prove that there was no one behind the stories about Jesus? Probably not.

                  "you clearly start out with the a priori assumption that Jesus existed"

                  No I don't. I start out by saying that you can't prove that Jesus did not exist.

                  "You clearly have no idea what you're talking about."

                  Yes I do. But I'd rather be clueless than wedded to a fallacious belief as strong as yours. It's obviously closed your mind so tight that not a crack of light can penetrate. I've often been accused of being that way in this Tribe, but I think you're the real deal.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    Unsu...
                     
                    I find it most odd that someone would claim that the real story of Jesus is akchullyfakchully a natural procession of pretty much everything, and then deny that "sumones" life fitted that mold and then they used that person as basis to explain hot to live in that procession.

                    sure jesus could have existed in the manner Hoopes says. It's really, really weird you choose not to see that.

                    and Zeitgeist is a terrible movie btw
                    • H "You can throw as many names and quotes at me as you want, but that doesn't get to the heart of things."

                      - Yeah, it kinda does, you just don't know it yet. Those aren't just any names or quotes they represent the very best that Christianity has to offer.

                      H "I'd rather be clueless than wedded to a fallacious belief as strong as yours."

                      - Says he who was ready to believe in the "collage of 20 different people" existed when none of their names were even mentioned. You'll believe anything if it makes you feel good to believe it - which is exactly what euphoria and faith is. Facts and evidence do not matter to you - not that you are aware of any. Do you know when the 4 cannonical gospels Mark, Matthew, Luke and John entered the historic and literary records and who wrote them?

                      H "I start out by saying that you can't prove that Jesus did not exist. "

                      - That's your issue, you still don't understand that this comment is a fallacy - "proving a negative", the burden of proof rests in the hands of those who claim Jesus existed. After 2,000 years they've provided absolutely no evidence for Jesus. Guess what, in this case the "absence of evidence *IS* evidence of absence." The absence of evidence is exactly what we would expect to find if Jesus never existed.

                      Chon "sure jesus could have existed in the manner Hoopes says."

                      - This is what gets repeated over and over when the historical evidence demonstrates something very different.

                      What is your very best evidence for the Jesus of the bible?

                      "Hide the prophecy, tell the narrative, and invent the history."
                      ~ Dr. John D. Crossan, The Historical Jesus (372)
                      • Unsu...
                         
                        I'd concede that there don't need to be any particular real evidence. There certainly won't be any around unless you find a cabinet or some sandals with the original label on. I don't believe that that many christians feel the need to believe that either. until you get the personal realization, it will always be a projection which is a useful byproduct and tool for myth. there's nothing wrong with the jesus myth, except its a bit boring. but there's is definitely nothing wrong with the idea that jesus was real and was used in particular to develop the teaching.
                      • "The absence of evidence is exactly what we would expect to find if Jesus never existed."

                        You still haven't said how you're defining "evidence". By your logic, the following are also true:

                        The absence of evidence is exactly what we would expect to find if Atlantis and Lemuria never existed.

                        The absence of evidence is exactly what we would expect to find if psychic phenomena never existed.

                        The absence of evidence is exactly what we would expect to find if alien abductions never existed.

                        The absence of evidence is exactly what we would expect to find if a conspiracy for 9/11 never existed.

                        The absence of evidence is exactly what we would expect to find if Maya prophecies of 2012 never existed.

                        You don't seem to realize that you have a problem here. Especially when there are people who have completely different takes from you on what the evidence for these various things are. I agree with you that the burden of proof rests on those who claim that these various things do exist, but there is also a burden of proof for anyone who affirmatively claims they dd not.

                        The best you can say is that it is extremely unlikely or that you just don't know. Your absolute denial is a fallacy and/or statement of belief, not fact.
                      • Some comments on this from a colleague about the Slate article I mentioned in another thread, but which are pertinent here:

                        "This style and strategy---to sow doubt without evidence by claiming the absence of evidence for what is still not known---is the oldest form of demagoguery, from American continental drift deniers in the 50s, Holocaust deniers in the 80s and on, to DDT deniers (remember Rachel Carson?) in the 50s and 60s, to the cigarette smoke-cancer deniers, to the second-hand smoke deniers, to evolution deniers, to coal-as-pollutant deniers, etc."
                        • Chon "there's is definitely nothing wrong with the idea that jesus was real and was used in particular to develop the teaching."

                          - Except that it's a LIE "Why Jesus?: Was Jesus a good example?"
                          www.ffrf.org/nontracts/jesus.php

                          H "You don't seem to realize that you have a problem here"

                          - The problem is yours and that is that you are ignorant on many things surrounding these issues - instead of pretending to be an expert on things you know very little about you should be asking questions and looking for evidence.

                          H "Especially when there are people who have completely different takes from you on what the evidence for these various things are."

                          - I'm studying what the top experts on all sides of the issues are saying. Rather than relying so heavily on euphoria and faith.

                          H "I agree with you that the burden of proof rests on those who claim that these various things do exist, but there is also a burden of proof for anyone who affirmatively claims they dd not."

                          - No, H, you still don't understand how burden of proof works even though it has been explained to you many times now. I don't believe Jesus ever existed BECAUSE THERE IS NO REASON I SHOULD - NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM AFTER 2,000 YEARS OF SEARCHING - GET IT? HOW MANY MORE THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF "ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE" DO YOU NEED?

                          H "The best you can say is that it is extremely unlikely or that you just don't know."

                          - That is a good guess for someone who still doesn't have a solid grasp of "burden of proof" and "proving a negative" - in this case the probability is 98-99% that Jesus never existed because the principle of proving a negative stop short of 100%.

                          H "Your absolute denial is a fallacy and/or statement of belief, not fact."

                          - This is more of your ignorance on the issues speaking. The facts and evidence that does exist and are not based in euphoria or faith, demonstrate the very high likelihood that the character in the bible called Jesus Christ NEVER EXISTED and was based on older pagan mythologies etc. There's nothing original about Christianity.

                          1. What is your very best evidence for the Jesus of the bible?

                          2. Do you know when the 4 canonical gospels Mark, Matthew, Luke and John entered the historic and literary records and who wrote them?

                          "Apart from the New Testament writings and later writings dependent upon these, our sources of information about the life and teaching of Jesus are scanty and problematic"

                          ~ F.F. Bruce, "New Testament History" founder of the modern evangelical movement WWJ 84
                          • "Except that it's a LIE."

                            No, it's not. You can't yet prove that there was not someone named Jesus (or even something else) on whom the stories in the New Testament are based.

                            "the very high likelihood that the character in the bible called Jesus Christ NEVER EXISTED"

                            Bingo. "Very high likelihood" is your ticket out of this hell.

                            Now, what do you mean by "the character... called Jesus"? What do you mean by "the bible"? Are you referring to only the canonical gospels or also the gnostic gospels? What about the references in Josephus? What about archaeological evidence?

                            For a while there, it sounded as if you were claiming that it was a closed case, despite the fact that there are undoubtedly many more discoveries to be made--perhaps even on the order of the Dead Sea Scrolls--with regard to archaeological evidence, the discovery of unknown gnostic gospels, identification of people, places, and events mentioned in the New Testament and so forth. I think you'd get a lot of argument (not necessarily valid, but argument nonetheless) from scientists who have formulated opinions about the Shroud of Turin, which many consider to be "evidence" bearing on this question.

                            www.shroud.com

                            I really think you should consider this article in Salon.com on the issue of "extreme skepticism":

                            www.slate.com/id/2189178/entry/2189179/

                            Your approach is not so different from that of the cigarette companies mentioned in this article:

                            "In 1969, a series of historic memorandums began to circulate at a tobacco company in Kentucky. The documents addressed growing public concern over the health risks associated with smoking and outlined a brazen response: The cigarette manufacturers would 'establish—once and for all—that no scientific evidence has ever been produced, presented or submitted to prove conclusively that cigarette smoking causes cancer.' To support this ludicrous assertion (which the tobacco executives knew to be false) would require a spin campaign of monumental proportions. That campaign's inaugural words have now become a slogan for corporate connivery: 'Doubt is our product,' read one infamous memo, 'since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the mind of the general public."

                            We haven't gotten into the theological implications of your perspective, but it may be representative of a kind of fundamentalist atheism (among whose principal tenets of faith would be the statements "God doesn't exist" and "Jesus didn't exist") in which doubt is your product. There''s nothing wrong with doubt, but as the author of the Salon.com article concludes:

                            "...it's worth taking a moment to do just as the doubt-mongers suggest, and turn skepticism back on itself. Good science requires moderation in all things. Immoderate doubt is paranoia."
                          • I'm curious about your repeated use of the term "euphoria". Are you using it in this sense?

                            "Euphoria - An exaggerated feeling of physical and emotional well-being, usually of psychological origin. Also seen in organic mental disorders and in toxic and drug-induced states. See also bipolar disorders. "
                            www.gatewaypsychiatric.com/SFGH...h.htm

                            Is it just an idiosyncratic way of attacking those who disagree with you as being delusional, or are you saying something else?

                            "I don't believe Jesus ever existed BECAUSE THERE IS NO REASON I SHOULD"

                            Okay, you're certainly entitled to your own belief (which, as I've said, is a matter of faith). Just don't try to cram it down someone else's throat. When you do that, you're just as offensive as other religious zealots.

                            Does believing what you do bring you a sense of euphoria?
                            • <<"Except that it's a LIE.">>

                              H "No, it's not. You can't yet prove that there was not someone named Jesus (or even something else) on whom the stories in the New Testament are based."

                              - Again, you make what your 6th attempt to use "proving a negative" as a fallacy. When will you ever learn? I don't have to prove there wasn't a person named Jesus - there certainly was but there's no evidence to prove any of them to have said or did the things in the bible - on the other hand, there is evidence that does exist that show parallels to the "story o Jesus" long before the Christian era. You like Occam's razor...apply it here.

                              H "Now, what do you mean by "the character... called Jesus"?"

                              - Character, as in any other fictional character who never really existed.

                              H "What about the references in Josephus?"

                              - LOL, what about them? Even if his few comments were authentic, they're far too late to be considered evidence. As explained in the video I shared with you - maybe you should actually watch it - www.livevideo.com/video/1FD...ts-of.aspx

                              H "What about archaeological evidence?"

                              - LOL, The Stone Box And Jesus' Brother's Bones March 23,2008 www.cbsnews.com/stories/20...54980.shtml

                              Here's some more - "FOUR Israeli antiquities collectors and dealers were charged yesterday with running a sophisticated worldwide ring forging biblical artifacts."

                              www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...873.html

                              "Israeli dealers accused of antiquity fraud" - sf.indymedia.org/news/2004...708223.php

                              "Forgers 'tried to rewrite biblical history" - www.guardian.co.uk/internat...4,00.html

                              "The Bible, as History, Flunks New Archaeological Tests" - www.truthbeknown.com/bibleflunks.htm

                              "The Stone Box: Did A Stone Box Once Contain The Bones Of Jesus' Brother?" Dec 19th, 2004
                              www.cbsnews.com/stories/20...61815.shtml

                              H "Shroud of Turin"

                              - LOL

                              H "your perspective...may be representative of a kind of fundamentalist atheism"

                              Hoopse, I happen to be against what I call militant atheism. My views are based on thorough investigation on the evidence that does exist. Instead of throwing more straw man fallacies at me because you don't like the fact that my conclusions are quite reasonable and reality based, why not ask questions and do some serious research instead of trying to challenge me?

                              H "God doesn't exist" and "Jesus didn't exist"

                              - You want to "turn skepticism back on itself"? Show me the evidence that these exist and I will change my mind. Until then, my position is a logical, reasonable one based on reality. If you don't like that, then that is your issue - not mine.

                              Euphoria:

                              "a feeling of well-being or elation; especially : one that is groundless, disproportionate to its cause, or inappropriate to one's life situation"

                              ~ Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary

                              "A feeling of great happiness or well-being, commonly exaggerated and not necessarily well founded."

                              ~ The American Heritage

                              "a strong feeling of happiness, sometimes leading to overconfidence"

                              ~ Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary

                              dictionary.reference.com/browse/euphoria

                              Faith:

                              "belief that is not based on proof"

                              "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."

                              dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

                              H "Is it just an idiosyncratic way of attacking those who disagree with you as being delusional, or are you saying something else?'

                              - I don't need to attack those who disagree with me as I am on the side of facts and evidence. If you have evidence to present, then do it.

                              <<"I don't believe Jesus ever existed BECAUSE THERE IS NO REASON I SHOULD">>

                              H "Okay, you're certainly entitled to your own belief"

                              - No, no Hoopse - you still don't understand, this is *NOT* a belief based in euphoria and faith but rather, it is based on the facts and evidence that actually exist. If you have a good reason for me to believe that God and Jesus exist based on facts and evidence that can stand up to scientific scrutiny, then share it - I'm sure the entire world would like to know your secret that apparently, only you are aware of.

                              H "Does believing what you do bring you a sense of euphoria?"

                              - No, again, there is a big difference between belief based in euphoria and faith, as opposed to rigorous investigation, facts and evidence that does exist. Try to understand the difference.

                              1. What is your very best evidence for the Jesus of the bible?

                              2. Do you know when the 4 canonical gospels Mark, Matthew, Luke and John entered the historic and literary records and who wrote them?

                              ;
                              • "1. What is your very best evidence for the Jesus of the bible?"

                                What would be the point of producing any? You are so committed to your belief that you would refuse to accept *any* evidence! You are really being totally boneheaded about this!

                                You haven't given me a clue about what you would considered to be even "mediocre" or "good" evidence, let alone convincing evidence. You repeatedly insist there is "no" evidence and that there never will be any! How in the world can you reject what hasn't yet been found?

                                My point is that your insistence that Jesus did not exist is based on what you want to believe is true. It's like insisting that no intelligent life exists anywhere else in the universe because neither you nor anyone else you know has seen any credible evidence for it. It's like insisting that Darwin's theory of evolution is impossible because neither you nor your friends find any of the evidence to be convincing.

                                "there is evidence that does exist that show parallels to the 'story o Jesus' long before the Christian era"

                                Okay, fine. You can construct a reasonably plausible theory that the "story o Jesus" was cobbled together from many more ancient stories. So what? That doesn't prove that there was no person to whom elements of these stories were assigned, or who was identified as an embodiment of this more ancient mythology. That's still open as a possibility.

                                "2. Do you know when the 4 canonical gospels Mark, Matthew, Luke and John entered the historic and literary records and who wrote them?"

                                Listen. I knew the answer to this question long before Brian Flemming even *thought* of making "The God Who Wasn't There" (for which these dates are a central "revelation"):

                                www.thegodmovie.com

                                That is irrelevant to your argument. The best you can do is to prove that the existence of Jesus as described in the Bible is highly unlikely. The contradictions among the gospels make it clear that all of the elements of the story can't possibly be true, but that doesn't mean that all of them are false.

                                There still remains the distinct possibility that some Jewish schmo named Jesus actually existed and somehow became the center of a rich mythology that morphed into Christian doctrine. Maybe he wasn't born in Bethlehem. He almost certainly didn't come back to life. However, you simply can't prove that every single part of the story is false, or that there was no one to whom parts of it were assigned.

                                Your phrasing of the issue in terms of absolutes is what makes it a matter of faith. Yours.
                                • <<"1. What is your very best evidence for the Jesus of the bible?">>

                                  H "What would be the point of producing any? You are so committed to your belief"

                                  - Okay Straw man fallacies aside, how about being honest and admit that you have no evidence for the Jesus character of the bible that can stand up to peer review and scientific scrutiny.

                                  H "My point is that your insistence that Jesus did not exist is based on what you want to believe is true."

                                  - Wrong once again Hoopse, I was a saved, baptized Christian for nearly 20 years that ad hom will not fly here. As spelled out for you man times now, I base my views on rigorus research, investigations, facts and evidence - what part of that are you not understanding?

                                  <<"there is evidence that does exist that show parallels to the 'story o Jesus' long before the Christian era">>

                                  H "You can construct a reasonably plausible theory that the "story o Jesus" was cobbled together from many more ancient stories. So what? That doesn't prove that there was no person to whom elements of these stories were assigned, or who was identified as an embodiment of this more ancient mythology. That's still open as a possibility."

                                  - Wrong, it was based on natural phenomena - not a human. The natural phenomena (Sun, Moon, stars, constellations, planets, thunder, lightning etc) were personified and anthropomorphized "the attribution of uniquely human characteristics to nonhuman beings, inanimate objects, or natural or supernatural phenomena".

                                  Solar Mythology Lesson #1 - members.cox.net/deleyd/rel...th/day.html

                                  <<"2. Do you know when the 4 canonical gospels Mark, Matthew, Luke and John entered the historic and literary records and who wrote them?">>

                                  H "That is irrelevant to your argument."

                                  - Yes, it is very relevant, as the NT is often used as the best "evidence" for the Jesus character of the bible.

                                  H "The best you can do is to prove that the existence of Jesus as described in the Bible is highly unlikely."

                                  - No, Christianity and the bible itself does that for us. We can go much further than that. We can trace the links demonstrating where the ideas in the bible came from and track them back to their origins. As already mentioned there wasn't anything original about the Jesus character. That puts a thorn in the side your theory "Jewish schmo named Jesus actually existed and somehow became the center of a rich mythology that morphed into Christian doctrine."

                                  H "Your phrasing of the issue in terms of absolutes is what makes it a matter of faith. Yours."

                                  - Wrong once again, it's actually a matter of rigorous investigation, facts and evidence that does exist. Faith and euphoria are only needed to believe in something that cannot be demonstrated to exist due to a monumental "absence of evidence." Try to understand the difference.

                                  Hoopse, your continued use of straw man and ad hom fallacies along with repeating the same arguments over & over after they've already been address several times due to lack of understanding demonstrate the weakness of your argument and that you really have nothing to offer here. Instead of trying to debate here maybe your time would be much better served studying the material I've shared.

                                  The "Historical" Jesus?
                                  www.truthbeknown.com/historicaljc.htm

                                  ;
                                  • "you have no evidence for the Jesus character of the bible that can stand up to peer review and scientific scrutiny"

                                    So what? There was no evidence for city of Troy until Heinrich Schliemann did his excavations at Hissarlik:

                                    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy

                                    Schliemann then went on to provide archaeological evidence for Agamemnon's Mycenae:

                                    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycenae

                                    The myth of Theseus and King Minos was just a fable until Arthur Evans discovered Knossos:

                                    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knossos

                                    More recently, historical and archaeological research is providing credible evidence for the basis of Homer's "Odyssey":

                                    www.odysseus-unbound.org

                                    You keep insisting that I provide you with evidence, which is totally missing the point: Your insistence that it is "known" that Jesus did not exist is just like denying the historical bases for the stories of Theseus, the Iliad, and the Odyssey. I wouldn't be surprised if the myths of Osiris and Hercules also had a basis in real people.

                                    "I was a saved, baptized Christian for nearly 20 years that ad hom will not fly here."

                                    Au contraire, mon frere. Your susceptibility to a faith-based explanation before (for nearly 20 years) only increases the likelihood that you are accepting one again. You seem to have flipped from a belief in Jesus to a belief that Jesus didn't exist. Both are beliefs. There's nothing to be ashamed of there. We've all got a few. Just don't go claiming your belief is the truth and expecting everyone to buy it.

                                    "Wrong, it was based on natural phenomena - not a human."

                                    Why not both? Both the ancient Greeks and the ancient Maya interpreted constellations and events in the nighttime sky as phenomena that were associated with the actions of semidivine mythological beings who were probably based on stories of real people that had been handed down, in embellished form, for many generations. The Sun, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn have all been considered to be "gods", but why isn't it possible that before they were "gods" these were people whose stories were mapped onto celestial objects? That seems very likely with stories of the constellation Orion. The Inca emperors claimed to have been descended from the Sun, who they regarded as a real person who had existed in the distant past. It makes lots of sense that they were talking about an actual ancestor (perhaps at the earlier civilization of Tiwanaku) who had experienced an apotheosis that turned him into the Sun. The Popol Vuh of the Quiché Maya talks about the hero twins, Hunahpu and Xbalanque, who eventually became the Sun and the Moon (though earlier myths may have cast them as the Sun and Venus). There is evidence to suggest that this myth goes back to Olmec times, when the "hero twins" could have been actual people who were immortalized in legend.

                                    You seem to be assuming that natural phenomena such as celestial bodies were anthropomorphized as mythical humans. Most of the world mythology with which I'm familiar has it the other way around: Humans who performed heroic acts turned into objects or constellations in the nighttime sky, or natural features on the landscape. The Incas explained a lot of large, unusual rocks as legendary figures who had turned into stones. There is even some of this in the Bible, such as the story of Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salt (which may have been an actual object on the landscape) or the oral history of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah being destroyed to turn into the Dead Sea. There are lots of examples of historical figures and events turning into natural phenomena that then continued to be explained in terms of these myths.

                                    Why does the process have to be either/or? It is certainly possible that older myths of people who turned into Venus or the Sun were mapped onto a historical figure such as Jesus, who then "rose into Heaven" to repeat the process. You seem to assume a simple conversion of accounts of natural phenomena into complex historical narratives. I suspect it was a far more complex process that unfolded over generations, with people turning into planets/gods and vice versa many times. In fact, I think the process of "turning into" was often dispensed with. In the case of Jesus, the historical person could have simultaneously been the Sun/son (or Venus, son of the Sun). Celestial associations in no way "prove" that a historical person at the center of the mythology surrounding Jesus never existed.

                                    "We can trace the links demonstrating where the ideas in the bible came from and track them back to their origins."

                                    Sure, but the central part of the Jesus mythology is that he was a prophesied Messiah who conformed to the more ancient predictions. Just because you can track the ideas back doesn't mean they were not historically assigned to a specific person who actually lived. The Christian mythology doesn't refer to reincarnation, but the many flesh-and-blood incarnations of Vishnu (including recent monarchs of Nepal) provide a good example of how the identities of deities can be assigned to real people. The Kumari, or "living goddess" of Nepal is a very clear example of exactly how this happens even today:

                                    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumari

                                    The difference between the Kumari and Jesus may simply be that Kumaris continue in a perpetual tradition while Jesus was more of a one-time-only person-as-god deal.

                                    " As already mentioned there wasn't anything original about the Jesus character."

                                    Fine, that's certainly true of the Kumari and incarnations of Vishnu. Maybe it was the fact that it *wasn't* original part of the process that made the identification of Jesus-as-God believable in the first place.

                                    "it's actually a matter of rigorous investigation, facts and evidence that does exist"

                                    As I pointed out above, facts and evidence about the historical realities behind the stories of Minos, Agamemnon, and Odysseus didn't exist either until people discovered them. Faked shrouds and ossuaries aside, there is SO much yet to be discovered about the time when Jesus is supposed to have existed. A whole new field of study is opening up in the realm of ancient DNA that is already revealing some surprising new evidence about the possible historical veracity of Biblical accounts and associated oral traditions:

                                    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_DNA

                                    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-ch...omal_Aaron

                                    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

                                    There is lots yet to be revealed, my friend. I wouldn't consider the issue of the historical Jesus to be even close to being a closed case. Of course, there are plenty of people who are hyping it as one for fame and fortune. Don't believe the hype.
                                  • Aztec religion may provide some unexpected clues regarding the relationship between older stories and the historical Jesus:

                                    "A common Aztec religious practice was the recreation of the divine: Mythological events would be ritually recreated and living persons would impersonate specific deities and be revered as a god - and often ritually sacrificed."
                                    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_religion
                                    • <<"you have no evidence for the Jesus character of the bible that can stand up to peer review and scientific scrutiny">>

                                      H "So what?"

                                      - Thank you for finally being honest in admitting you haven't got a damn thing to provide as evidence for Jesus.

                                      H "I wouldn't be surprised if the myths of Osiris and Hercules also had a basis in real people."

                                      - LOL, I know, it's so funny, you've already demonstrated you'll believe anything without any evidence to support it.

                                      H "You seem to have flipped from a belief in Jesus to a belief that Jesus didn't exist."

                                      - You still don't get - we know.

                                      H "Just because you can track the ideas back doesn't mean they were not historically assigned to a specific person who actually lived."

                                      - LOL, Lay off the pipe. Make it up any which way you need to in order to make yourself feel good about it.

                                      H "A whole new field of study is opening up in the realm of ancient DNA that is already revealing some surprising new evidence about the possible historical veracity of Biblical accounts and associated oral traditions"

                                      - Keep dreaming with your euphoria and faith.

                                      H "There is lots yet to be revealed, my friend."

                                      - If the earliest Christians, church fathers, the bible and Constantine couldn't ever produce evidence for Jesus then I won't hold my breathe 2,000 years later.

                                      Nice demonstration of shallow encyclopedia entries though. Do some real research for once, please.

                                      Simply provide the evidence for the Jesus character of the bible and this will be over. If you can't do it then just chill out and admit it like any other honest person with integrity would.

                                      Hoopse, your continued use of straw man and ad hom fallacies along with repeating the same arguments over & over after they've already been address several times due to lack of understanding demonstrate the weakness of your argument and that you really have nothing to offer here. Instead of trying to debate here maybe your time would be much better served studying the material I've shared.
                                      • "Simply provide the evidence for the Jesus character of the bible and this will be over."

                                        You have not done anything to define what you mean by "the Jesus character of the bible" or to describe what you mean by "the evidence" you would find persuasive.

                                        It is not an issue of whether evidence exists or not, but of what evidence is acceptable to you. There is loads of evidence that exists and that millions of people find persuasive, just none that you accept. The same could be said regarding ESP, extraterrestrial intelligence, or Bigfoot. I don't need to prove that Jesus existed in order to demonstrate that it is not possible to prove that he didn't.

                                        The claim that you are making that Jesus did not exist is like claiming that ESP, extraterrestrial evidence, and Bigfoot don't exist. You're certainly entitled to believe or disbelieve what you want, but that does not change the fact that your denial of the existence of Jesus remains a matter of faith.
                                      • " Instead of trying to debate here maybe your time would be much better served studying the material I've shared."

                                        Now you're beginning to sound downright evangelical.
                                        • <<"Instead of trying to debate here maybe your time would be much better served studying the material I've shared.">>

                                          H "Now you're beginning to sound downright evangelical."

                                          - Nice ad hom, Hoopse. Anything of substance to add or no?

                                          <<"Simply provide the evidence for the Jesus character of the bible and this will be over.">>

                                          H "describe what you mean by "the evidence" you would find persuasive."

                                          Hoopse, I've already said it several times, "evidence that can stand up to peer review and scientific scrutiny." I am aware of all the "evidence" Christians have held up over the centuries too bad it has all been debunked.

                                          The rest of your post is more red herrings to distract away from the issue at hand. Simply provide evidence for the existence for the character in the bible called Jesus Christ that can stand up to peer review and scientific scrutiny and this will all be over.

                                          * It would also be the 1st time throughout history any such evidence has turned up.

                                          "The only definite account of his life and teachings is contained in the four Gospels of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. All other historical records of the time are silent about him. The brief mentions of Jesus in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius have been generally regarded as not genuine and as Christian interpolations; in Jewish writings there is no report about Jesus that has historical value. Some scholars have even gone so far as to hold that the entire Jesus story is a myth…"

                                          ~ The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia (v. 6, 83)
                                          ~ WWJ 84
                                          • "Simply provide evidence for the existence for the character in the bible called Jesus Christ that can stand up to peer review and scientific scrutiny and this will all be over."

                                            Sheesh! You just don't get it, do you? I don't need to provide any evidence since I'm not claiming that Jesus existed! You're the one who's claiming, with absolute certainty, that you know he did not exist. You haven't even explained yet who you are saying did not exist. Do you mean a Jesus exactly as described in every detail in the New Testament? Or are you even denying that there was ever some guy named Jesus whose actual life was subsequently adorned with stories of miracles, fulfillment of prophecies, and attributes of older mythologies? Are you even reading and considering any of my arguments?

                                            "I've already said it several times, 'evidence that can stand up to peer review and scientific scrutiny.'"

                                            Such evidence may not exist. However, no one knows that yet--and they may *never* know--so it is not possible for you or anyone else to assert that Jesus didn't exist except as a statement of faith. Perhaps atheistic faith, but faith nonetheless.

                                            Go ahead and believe whatever you want. All you've proved is that arguing with a zealot is futile. I already knew that.
                                            • H "Perhaps atheistic faith, but faith nonetheless. "

                                              - You're only getting juvenile with your repeated "faith" comments at this point because you clearly haven't got a single thing to offer here. If you want to describe views based on rigorous investigation, evidence and facts as "faith", that is your issue, not mine.

                                              For the last time, if you've got evidence for a "guy named Jesus whose actual life was subsequently adorned with stories of miracles, fulfillment of prophecies, and attributes of older mythologies" as found in the bible, that can stand up to peer review and scientific scrutiny, THEN LETS SEE IT.

                                              You're doing nothing but wasting time and post space at this point. I'll be ignoring you from here on as I should've a long time ago.

Recent topics in "Year 2012"